Ultrasound-guided vein puncture versus surgical cut-down technique in totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADS): a prospective comparative study on safety, efficacy andcomplications

Cephalic Vein Cut Down for Total Implantable Venous Access Ports: A Retrospective Review of a Single Institution Series

Objective

The aim of this work was to describe the early and late success rates of cephalic vein cut down (CVC) in the implantation of totally implantable venous access ports (TIVAP) for chemotherapy treatment in oncological patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 1 047 TIVAP performed in a private institution between 2008 and 2021. The CVC with pre-operative ultrasound (PUS) was the initial approach. All cephalic veins (CVs) were mapped pre-operatively with Doppler ultrasound, measuring their diameter and course in oncological patients who required a TIVAP. With a CV diameter ≥ 3.2 mm TIVAP was carried out by CVC; with CV diameter < 3.2 mm, subclavian vein puncture (SVP) was performed.

Results

1 047 TIVAPs were implanted in 998 patients. The mean age was 61.5 ± 11.5 years, 624 were women (65.5%). Male patients were significantly older and with a higher incidence of colonic, digestive system, and laryngeal cancer. Initially, TIVAP was indicated in 858 cases (82%) by CVC and 189 (18%) by SVP. The success rate was 98.5% for CVC and 98.4% for SVP. There were no complications for CVC (0%) but five early complications (2.5%) in the SVP group. The rates of late complications were 4.4% in the CVC group and 5.0% in the SVP group, foreign body infection being the most frequent (57.5% of the cases) (p = .85).

Conclusion

The CVC or SVP using PUS for TIVAP deployment, performed through a single incision, is a safe and effective technique. This open but minimally invasive technique should be considered in oncological patients.

Comparison of Central Venous Port Procedures Between Puncture vs. Cut-down and Residents vs. Senior Surgeons

BACKGROUND/AIM

To compare operative results between venous puncture (P) with real-time ultrasonography vs. cut-down (CD) with preoperative ultrasonography for totally implantable central vein access device (TICVAD) implantation performed by residents (R) vs. senior surgeons (S).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Adult oncologic patients (n=268) undergoing TICVAD implantations were retrospectively compared between 172 Ps and 96 CDs. Then, we compared Ps performed by R (P-R, n=131) and S (P-S, n=41) and CDs performed by R (CD-R, n=59) and S (CD-S, n=37).

RESULTS

Median operation times were 40 min in the P group and 53.5 min in the CD group, and times were significantly shorter for P-S and CD-S. Completion rates were comparable for each method and each surgeon. Intraoperative complication rates were 3.8% (P-R), 2.4% (P-S), and 0% (CD-R and CD-S).

CONCLUSION

P with real-time ultrasonography did not avoid complications compared to CD with preoperative ultrasonography. The latter performed safely even by residents.

Forty years after the first totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) implant: the pure surgical cut-down technique only avoids immediate complications that can be fatal

Aim

Even though TIVADs have been implanted for a long time, immediate complications are still occurring. The aim of this work was to review different techniques of placing TIVAD implants to evaluate the aetiology of immediate complications.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The patient numbers, number of implanted devices, specialists involved, implant techniques, implant sites and immediate complication onsets were studied.

Results

Of the 1256 manuscripts reviewed, 36 were eligible for inclusion in the study, for a total of 17,388 patients with equivalent TIVAD implantation. A total of 2745 patients (15.8%) were treated with a surgical technique and 14,643 patients (84.2%) were treated with a percutaneous technique. Of the 2745 devices (15.8%) implanted by a surgical technique, 1721 devices (62.7%) were placed in the cephalic vein (CFV). Of the 14,643 implants (84.2%) placed with a percutaneous technique, 5784 devices (39.5%) were placed in the internal jugular vein (IJV), and 5321 devices (36.3%) were placed in the subclavian vein (SCV). The number of immediate complications in patients undergoing surgical techniques was 32 (1.2%) HMMs. In patients treated with a percutaneous technique, the number of total complications were 333 (2.8%): 71 PNX (0.5%), 2 HMT (0.01%), 175 accidental artery punctures AAP (1.2%) and 85 HMM (0.6%). No mortality was reported with either technique.

Conclusion

The percutaneous approach is currently the most commonly used technique to implant a TIVAD, but despite specialist’s best efforts, immediate complications are still occurring. Surgical cut-down, 40 years after the first implant, is still the only technique that can avoid all of the immediate complications that can be fatal.

Cephalic Vein Cut-down for Totally Implantable Central Venous Access Devices With Preoperative Ultrasonography by Surgical Residents

BACKGROUND/AIM

Cephalic vein (CV) cut-down for totally implantable central venous access devices (TICVADs) is not frequently used due to its low success rate. We compared the outcomes of CV cut-down using preoperative ultrasonography (US) performed by experienced surgeons versus surgical residents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From December 2015 to December 2017, 10 surgeons implanted 212 TICVADs using CV cut-down with preoperative US. The surgeons were divided into two groups of five each: surgical residents (Group A, n=124 procedures) and experienced surgeons (Group B, n=88 procedures). Duration of operation time, completion rate, and complications were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The completion rate was significantly higher in Group A (98.4% versus 92.0%, p=0.04). Duration of operation time (45.2±14.5 versus 42.0±13.1 minutes, p=0.22), rates of early complications (1.6% versus 1.1%, p=0.77) and late complications (3.2% versus 2.3%, p=0.68) were equivalent between the two groups. No fatal complications occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

CV cut-down can be safely performed by surgical residents under the use of preoperative US.

Ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access ports via the right innominate vein: a new approach for patients with breast cancer

Background

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of ultrasound-guided totally implantable venous access port (TIVAP) implantation via the right innominate vein in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Sixty-seven breast cancer patients underwent ultrasound-guided implantation of TIVAPs via the right innominate vein for administration of chemotherapy. Clinical data including technical success, success rate for the first attempt, periprocedural, and postoperative complications were recorded and retrospectively studied.

Results

All patients underwent successful surgery. The success rate of the first attempt was 95.52% (64/67). The operation time was 28 to 45 min, with an average of 36 ± 6 min. Periprocedural complications included artery punctures in 1 (1.50%, 1/67) patient. Prior to this study, the mean TIVAP time was 257 ± 3 days (range 41 to 705 days). The rate of postoperative complications was 4.48% (3/67), including catheter-related infections in 1 case and fibrin sheath formation in 2 cases. Up to the present study, three people had unplanned port withdrawal due to complications, and the TIVAPs for 25 patients were still in normal use.

Conclusions

The success rate of ultrasound-guided TIVAPs via the right innominate vein is high with low complications, thus safe and feasible. This technique can provide a new option for chemotherapy of breast cancer patients.

Percutaneous versus Cut-Down Technique for Indwelling Port Placement

The superiority of surgical cut-down of the cephalic vein versus percutaneous catheterization of the subclavian vein for the insertion of totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) is debated. To compare the safety and efficacy of surgical cut-down versus percutaneous placement of TIVADs. This is a single-institution retrospective cohort study of oncologic patients who had TIVADs implanted by 14 surgeons. Primary outcomes were inability to place TIVAD by the primary approach and postoperative complications within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was performed by logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included operative time. Two hundred and forty-seven (55.9%) percutaneous and 195 (44.1%) cephalic cut-down patients were identified. The 30-day complication rate was 5.2 per cent: 14 patients (5.7%) in the percutaneous and nine (4.6%) in the cut-down group. The technique was not a significant predictor of having a 30-day complication (odds ratio = 0.820; 95% confidence interval 0.342–1.879). Implantation failure was observed in 16 percutaneous patients (6.5%) and 28 cut-down patients (14.4%) (adjusted odds ratio for cephalic vs cut-down = 2.387; 95% confidence interval 1.275–4.606). The median operative time for percutaneous patients was 46 minutes (interquartile range = 35, 59) versus 37.5 minutes (interquartile range = 30, 49) for cut-down patients(P < 0.0001). Both the percutaneous and cut-down technique are safe and effective for TIVAD implantation. Operative times were shorter and the odds of implantation failure higher for cephalic cut-down. As implantation failure is common, surgeons should familiarize themselves with both techniques.

A prospective evaluation on external jugular vein cut-down approach for TIVAD implantation

Background

Totally implantable venous access devices can be implanted both by percutaneous approaches and by surgical approaches with cephalic vein or external jugular vein cut-down techniques that are related to low intraoperative complication rates. The authors report a prospective evaluation of 83 consecutive external jugular vein cut-down approaches for totally implantable venous access devices implantation.

Methods

Eighty three consecutive patients (28 M, 55 F, mean age 54.2) suffering from solid tumors (58) or hematologic diseases (25) were consecutively submitted to totally implantable venous access devices insertion through external jugular vein cut-down approach (75 on right side, 8 on left side).

Results

All devices were surgically implanted; no instances of intraoperative complications were detected. After a minimum follow-up of 150 days, only one case of wound hematoma and one case of device malfunction due to incorrect catheter angulation were noted.

Postoperative patient satisfaction was evaluated by the use of specific questionnaire that demonstrated a good satisfaction and compliance (92.8 %) of patients with implanted devices.

Conclusions

Despite the lack of controlled studies comparing external jugular vein cut-down approach vs other approaches, this approach should be considered as a tool for long-term central vein catheters positioning, both as an alternative and for primary approach.